5 ms·

I always figured telegram got the screws turned on them all the time because their lack of E2E encryption meant it was viable to demand they proactively police

by kajman 2mo ago

I always figured telegram got the screws turned on them all the time because their lack of E2E encryption meant it was viable to demand they proactively police the platform in the first place. Maybe Signal would just be outright blocked in these locales if it was anywhere near as popular, though.

milkshakes 2mo ago
in fact, telegram does support e2e encryption ("secret chats")
- ivanmontillam 2mo ago
  It does, but it's not enabled by default; and that's the point.
- distances 2mo ago
  I've been in quite many Telegram chats, none of which has enabled it. For most practical purposes you can just consider Telegram not to have e2e since it's no good if it's not used.
hnlmorg 2mo ago
Signal is already well known to governments. In fact a few years ago there was a report in the UK media about how some governments used signal instead of official channels like email and did so because of Signals disappearing messages feature (ie making those MPs less accountable).
- einpoklum 2mo ago
  More recently, a Signal chat record leaked, between US national security advisor Mike Waltz, US VP JD Vance and others, regarding the ongoing illegal assassinations in Yemen: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/24/politics/yemen-strikes-journalist-cabinet-signal-chat https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/24/politics/yemen-strikes-jo... and it didn't leak because of Signal's security, but because an Atlantic maganize journalist was added to the group chat by Waltz.
  - esseph 2mo ago
    We are clear on OPSEC
inigyou 2mo ago
They generally don't have to proactively police it, but they have to answer court orders in every country that has courts, or they'll be in trouble in that country. And countries are free to cooperate with each other to enforce these. Pavel Durov was arrested when he traveled to France because Telegram was noncompliant with French court orders. You can ignore them in Russia... you can't ignore them in France. And you can ignore Russian court orders in France but not in Russia. And the Russian or Indian court is free to ask the Montenegrin government to suspend your domain name and the Montenegrin government is free to agree or disagree.
ufmace 2mo ago
I don't think anyone cares about E2E encryption as much as tech people think. For all of the much-vaunted complains about their lack of it, I am not aware of any proof or credible claims that Telegram the company has ever revealed the contents of non-encrypted messages or group chats. Meanwhile, I don't think any authorities actually care about to what extent E2E Encryption makes it harder for Signal the corporation to extract message data. There's plenty of other ways to skin that cat - on-device compromises, abuse of backup mechanisms, abuse of mechanisms to manage linked devices, etc. They'd go after them just the same if they thought there was anything they really wanted on there. If there's any real difference, I think it's most likely because many more of the group chats that such authorities are aware of and find "interesting" are on Telegram because basically nobody really does E2E well in medium-large groups right now.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Telegram is in very big trouble all the time for refusal to comply with court orders they're capable of complying with, which is related to E2EE.
  - ufmace 2mo ago
    That's vague to the point of being completely meaningless. Do you have any examples of a time they've been in "very big trouble", whatever that means? Exactly how often constitutes "all the time"? Do you have an example of a valid court order in any jurisdiction that they have failed to comply with? Do you have any examples of a court not mandating similar compliance for Signal, iMessage, or any other E2EE platform due to that? There is no exception in the law for E2EE and it will not save you from consequences from failing to comply with a valid court order.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Famously, Pavel Durov (owner of Telegram) was arrested in France a couple of years ago and held in custody until he complied with one he'd received earlier. Famously, Signal complies with court orders by giving up all the data that's requested that it has, which isn't very much. This is what you expect from E2EE platforms. A court order to do the impossible is invalid. Telegram gets in trouble because it's possible for them to comply but they choose not to. Subpoenas are usually worded as "you must provide all information you have, relating to ..."

by kajman 2mo ago

milkshakes 2mo ago

in fact, telegram does support e2e encryption ("secret chats")

ivanmontillam 2mo ago
It does, but it's not enabled by default; and that's the point.
distances 2mo ago
I've been in quite many Telegram chats, none of which has enabled it. For most practical purposes you can just consider Telegram not to have e2e since it's no good if it's not used.

hnlmorg 2mo ago

Signal is already well known to governments. In fact a few years ago there was a report in the UK media about how some governments used signal instead of official channels like email and did so because of Signals disappearing messages feature (ie making those MPs less accountable).

einpoklum 2mo ago
More recently, a Signal chat record leaked, between US national security advisor Mike Waltz, US VP JD Vance and others, regarding the ongoing illegal assassinations in Yemen: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/24/politics/yemen-strikes-journalist-cabinet-signal-chat https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/24/politics/yemen-strikes-jo... and it didn't leak because of Signal's security, but because an Atlantic maganize journalist was added to the group chat by Waltz.
- esseph 2mo ago
  We are clear on OPSEC

inigyou 2mo ago

They generally don't have to proactively police it, but they have to answer court orders in every country that has courts, or they'll be in trouble in that country. And countries are free to cooperate with each other to enforce these. Pavel Durov was arrested when he traveled to France because Telegram was noncompliant with French court orders. You can ignore them in Russia... you can't ignore them in France. And you can ignore Russian court orders in France but not in Russia. And the Russian or Indian court is free to ask the Montenegrin government to suspend your domain name and the Montenegrin government is free to agree or disagree.

ufmace 2mo ago

I don't think anyone cares about E2E encryption as much as tech people think. For all of the much-vaunted complains about their lack of it, I am not aware of any proof or credible claims that Telegram the company has ever revealed the contents of non-encrypted messages or group chats. Meanwhile, I don't think any authorities actually care about to what extent E2E Encryption makes it harder for Signal the corporation to extract message data. There's plenty of other ways to skin that cat - on-device compromises, abuse of backup mechanisms, abuse of mechanisms to manage linked devices, etc. They'd go after them just the same if they thought there was anything they really wanted on there. If there's any real difference, I think it's most likely because many more of the group chats that such authorities are aware of and find "interesting" are on Telegram because basically nobody really does E2E well in medium-large groups right now.

inigyou 2mo ago
Telegram is in very big trouble all the time for refusal to comply with court orders they're capable of complying with, which is related to E2EE.
- ufmace 2mo ago
  That's vague to the point of being completely meaningless. Do you have any examples of a time they've been in "very big trouble", whatever that means? Exactly how often constitutes "all the time"? Do you have an example of a valid court order in any jurisdiction that they have failed to comply with? Do you have any examples of a court not mandating similar compliance for Signal, iMessage, or any other E2EE platform due to that? There is no exception in the law for E2EE and it will not save you from consequences from failing to comply with a valid court order.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Famously, Pavel Durov (owner of Telegram) was arrested in France a couple of years ago and held in custody until he complied with one he'd received earlier. Famously, Signal complies with court orders by giving up all the data that's requested that it has, which isn't very much. This is what you expect from E2EE platforms. A court order to do the impossible is invalid. Telegram gets in trouble because it's possible for them to comply but they choose not to. Subpoenas are usually worded as "you must provide all information you have, relating to ..."